You Will Know Them by Their Fruits - A Response to Sir Silentium

[FarangInDaNang]

you're trying to reason with a christian cultist man

Yeah, @Sir Silentium the Pentecostal Heretic. First thing you said that was right today, tired as fuck.

 

[ANTAGONIST]

Dnr

 

[FarangInDaNang]

Dnr

I didn’t read your dnr

 

[tired as fuck]

Imagine thinking you don’t have any presuppositions JFL, you have a presupposition that the laws of logic are universal, reliable, and intelligible. You have a presupposition that the universe is orderly and knowable through reason alone. You have a presupposition Moral / social categories like “incel,” “fakecel,” “larper,” and “forum rules” have meaning
You say you don’t want non-incels on the forum if you had power, and you find larping “weird.” This assumes objective standards exist for who belongs here. Aka a presupposition.
Your whole “I have no presuppositions, I’m pure logic and detached” shtick falls apart immediately, EVERYONE has presuppositions.

You claim you reject “tribalism” and ideology, yet you constantly smuggle in your own unstated presuppositions:

• You presuppose logic and reason are reliable tools for truth (without justifying why).

• You presuppose ataraxia / personal peace is a worthy goal worth prioritizing over community standards.

• You presuppose “tribalism” is bad while defending a position that protects fakecels — which itself is a tribal choice (team “indifferent rationalist” vs team “people who enforce rules”).

• You presuppose there should be rules against foids, gays, and fakecels (“I wouldn’t want them here if I had power”), but then refuse to care when those rules are violated. That’s contradictory.
You can’t escape presuppositions. Everyone has them. Claiming you have none while typing walls of philosophy is peak autism your trying to be a philosophy bro without even knowing philosophy nor being able to pick a set stance without contradicting yourself. That’s why TAG (Transcendental Argument) destroys your position- you need foundational beliefs to even do basic reasoning or have a coherent worldview. Thank you for proving MY point.

You're projecting your own beliefs onto me. I never said nor implied any of those things. In fact, abiding by the laws of logic, then
a) logic might or might not be universal, can't decide from inside the world and through logic itself since it is not complete;
b) logic isn't universally reliable, because c)
c) the universe cannot be known by logic only (I advise you to study on the subject since this goes without saying);
d) those categories have meaning only insofar as I define them. They are not, evidently, universal, nor metaphysical, nor teleological, nor moral. There are people in the phenomenal reality that define themselves as incels, sure, but for the categories to have meaning I don't need to believe in anything, I need to aptly define them;
e) you took my words out of the original context: "I have no presuppositions, as you correctly point out" when replying to "where do you have your presuppositions of what should or shouldn’t be allowed if you have no faith in anything at all!". Clearly, there are unconscious biases which we all suffer from. But I have no presuppositions regarding this particular matter because it is purely a pragmatic matter than relies on forum definitions and moderators intervening. I am outside of it.
f) logic and reason govern dialogue, they are the way to get closer to the truth, and I don't need to justify why because there is no way to know, simply. You try to flatten Agrippa's Trilemma onto the arbitrary axiomatic choice, failing to comprehend the other two possibilities. And since we can't prove nor disprove the truth of the origin of logic, it remains simply a tool at our disposal, and I use it because it allows me to see more easily where there are contradictions and where there aren't, something that a dogma fails at doing.
g) I never said my personal goal of ataraxia trumps others' goals. I said it is, in my opinion, desirable because it allows to leave more peacefully by definition.
h) I think you do not understand at a fundamental level (and probably did not read in my messages) that I do not wish to be against the moderator team, nor be against the forum rules. I simply have my own opinions; since I am not a moderator, these opinions do not touch others. You spinning my ideas of indifference in the face of people being banned for not being incels to mean that I "defend fakecels" while telling me that I am in bad faith is laughable, for it really signals to me that you do not care about trying to have a discussion or a dialogue, but only care about mindless witch hunting to try and divide the forum.
i) How so? As I said I think twice already, you cannot know if people here are actually incels. You can only trust them and have faith in their sincerity and honesty. So when someone is outed as not being one, bearing in mind this impossibility to know, I simply shrug it off. It doesn't destroy the forum, no apocalyptic scenario plays out. I think you're intentionally being over-dramatic, and perhaps I might be your next target kek. Go make a post about me next.
j) TAG is a weak argument to make in general, but using it to try and "disprove" my positions is just disingenuous. It shows that you interpret the world from a purely dogmatic point of view, which does not naturally make dialogue and critical discussion possible. To state that you need foundational beliefs in order to do basic reasoning is false, you don't need to "believe" or "have faith" in anything, you simply need to set some operational premises (or axioms) and then develop a theory from it.

I'm getting tired of restating my points because you refuse to engage with them due to your strictly dogmatic view of the universe. It is clear that you are here only to troll and sow divide among people, trying to pitch forum members against one another because of reasons that do not manage to hold up when compared to both the forum rules and prior similar happenings. You effectively want to ban Silentium over a thought crime, which is the epitome of totalitarianism and leaves me astonished; not only that, you also try to make him out as a "fakecel" by analyzing one post of his with Ryo's framework that ironically applies to you more than to him. I suggest you lay down and spare yourself from further embarrassment.

 

[fatass30000]

"@Incline" ?

yeah him

 

[FarangInDaNang]

You're projecting your own beliefs onto me. I never said nor implied any of those things. In fact, abiding by the laws of logic, then
a) logic might or might not be universal, can't decide from inside the world and through logic itself since it is not complete;
b) logic isn't universally reliable, because c)
c) the universe cannot be known by logic only (I advise you to study on the subject since this goes without saying);
d) those categories have meaning only insofar as I define them. They are not, evidently, universal, nor metaphysical, nor teleological, nor moral. There are people in the phenomenal reality that define themselves as incels, sure, but for the categories to have meaning I don't need to believe in anything, I need to aptly define them;
e) you took my words out of the original context: "I have no presuppositions, as you correctly point out" when replying to "where do you have your presuppositions of what should or shouldn’t be allowed if you have no faith in anything at all!". Clearly, there are unconscious biases which we all suffer from. But I have no presuppositions regarding this particular matter because it is purely a pragmatic matter than relies on forum definitions and moderators intervening. I am outside of it.
f) logic and reason govern dialogue, they are the way to get closer to the truth, and I don't need to justify why because there is no way to know, simply. You try to flatten Agrippa's Trilemma onto the arbitrary axiomatic choice, failing to comprehend the other two possibilities. And since we can't prove nor disprove the truth of the origin of logic, it remains simply a tool at our disposal, and I use it because it allows me to see more easily where there are contradictions and where there aren't, something that a dogma fails at doing.
g) I never said my personal goal of ataraxia trumps others' goals. I said it is, in my opinion, desirable because it allows to leave more peacefully by definition.
h) I think you do not understand at a fundamental level (and probably did not read in my messages) that I do not wish to be against the moderator team, nor be against the forum rules. I simply have my own opinions; since I am not a moderator, these opinions do not touch others. You spinning my ideas of indifference in the face of people being banned for not being incels to mean that I "defend fakecels" while telling me that I am in bad faith is laughable, for it really signals to me that you do not care about trying to have a discussion or a dialogue, but only care about mindless witch hunting to try and divide the forum.
i) How so? As I said I think twice already, you cannot know if people here are actually incels. You can only trust them and have faith in their sincerity and honesty. So when someone is outed as not being one, bearing in mind this impossibility to know, I simply shrug it off. It doesn't destroy the forum, no apocalyptic scenario plays out. I think you're intentionally being over-dramatic, and perhaps I might be your next target kek. Go make a post about me next.
j) TAG is a weak argument to make in general, but using it to try and "disprove" my positions is just disingenuous. It shows that you interpret the world from a purely dogmatic point of view, which does not naturally make dialogue and critical discussion possible. To state that you need foundational beliefs in order to do basic reasoning is false, you don't need to "believe" or "have faith" in anything, you simply need to set some operational premises (or axioms) and then develop a theory from it.

I'm getting tired of restating my points because you refuse to engage with them due to your strictly dogmatic view of the universe. It is clear that you are here only to troll and sow divide among people, trying to pitch forum members against one another because of reasons that do not manage to hold up when compared to both the forum rules and prior similar happenings. You effectively want to ban Silentium over a thought crime, which is the epitome of totalitarianism and leaves me astonished; not only that, you also try to make him out as a "fakecel" by analyzing one post of his with Ryo's framework that ironically applies to you more than to him. I suggest you lay down and spare yourself from further embarrassment.

Dnr

 

[FarangInDaNang]

yeah him

Who was he? Did he ascend?

 

[yeetbender_]

Glad to see karma in action.

 

[Guatemalancel]

there is no problem with being "picky about religion" you would not want to marry a woman who you fight with constantly over the education of your child and maybe even over her religion especially when being picky or not isn't gonna make much of a change when it's either nothing or nothing for you that doesn't make you a fakecel especially for him cause sadly pentecostals are everywhere so he won't have any issue with finding those people

 

[flasa]

guys stay away from turkish